Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/15979/2025 of SANDEEP KUMAR S/O RANJEET Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 19 February 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15979/2025 Sandeep Kumar S/o Ranjeet, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bilsuri, Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15979/2025
Sandeep Kumar S/o Ranjeet, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bilsuri, Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Rohan Singh for
Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
19/02/2026
1. This anticipatory bail application, under Section 482 of BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest, in connection with FIR No. 74/2022 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 457, 380, 427, 212, 120-B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is an innocent person, has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, however, the police is trying to implicate the petitioner merely on the basis of statements of co-accused. Learned counsel also submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-15979/2025] required in this matter, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner hereinabove. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that he damaged the ATM using gas-cutter and stole a huge amount of Rs. 2689500/- from the same, in which recovery is yet to be made. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is having twelve criminal antecedents and his custody is required for further proceedings in the matter. Hence, benefit of anticipatory bail may not be granted to him.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record.
5. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that investigation is pending and recovery is yet to be made in this case; looking to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the nature of offence, without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS to the petitioner at this stage.
6. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/39